A feasibility report should preserve the decision—not just the preferred picture.

Lead with the decision and scope

State the property, intended use, question being evaluated, and stage of the work. Identify what the study includes and excludes. A preliminary site investigation should not read like a permit determination, survey, appraisal, or final design.

• Property and jurisdiction being evaluated.
• Decision the report is intended to support.
• Study date, author, and source-material cutoff.
• Known exclusions and professional-review boundaries.

Make the property basis reproducible

Record the parcel or zoning-lot boundary used, lot-area source, jurisdiction, zoning district, overlays, survey status, and available site information. If sources disagree, show the conflict and identify which basis each scenario uses rather than silently choosing one.

Separate controls from interpretations

Organize setbacks, FAR, coverage, height, parking, access, density, and other relevant controls with their sources. Distinguish a quoted requirement from the team’s interpretation and from an assumption used only to test a scenario. Note any approval, bonus, variance, or rezoning on which an option depends.

Give every scenario the same ledger

For each option, show the footprint and massing basis, program or unit schedule, parking and circulation approach, counted and gross areas, entitlement premise, and important unresolved conditions. Compare options using the same units and definitions so a larger scheme is not made to look better by changing the denominator.

Connect the geometry to the economics

Carry scenario-specific quantities into cost, income, financing, timing, and sensitivity assumptions. Label the source, date, unit, and rationale for material inputs. Keep zoning floor area, gross construction area, and rentable or saleable area distinct. Financial results are modeled outcomes—not an appraisal, financing commitment, or guarantee of returns.

End with the investigation plan

List the open question, evidence needed, responsible person, and decision affected. The conclusion should explain what the current evidence supports, what could change the result, and which action is justified next: refine, investigate, coordinate, pause, or compare another scenario.